Eric Wolzak wrote:
>> Too bad. Probably I won't have much luck, but
>
> I'll try anyway :-)
> be carefull with root.lrp. I used tar and
> everything did backup fine.
> Only root caused a real trouble.
> I experimented with this for some time a summary
> of my post:
>
> The problem was that the exclude option
> overrides
> the include option.
> an example
> So with backup of ppp.lrp in the include list
> for ppp exists /etc/ppp
> now the files that are backed up with the other
> packages are
> excluded.
> in the exclude list it says /etc (from to
> package etc.lrp)
> at least with BB 0.49 now the /etc/ppp in the
> include list was
> ignored because /etc was in the exclude list.
> So all packets were smaller :) but less
> functionall ;)
>
I observed the same :-(
> I used the following command
> tar -c -v `cat $INCLUDE` -X $EXCLUDE | gzip
>
>> $DIR/$PACKAGE.lrp
>
>
> The problem can be probably be solved by
> changing the principal
> method of how to select what to backup but this
> would mean
> incompatibility with the original. As ctar is
> only very small i left
> this
> on my image.>
>
>>>> 22-4 updated icmpinfo,rdate,traceroute
>>>
> to latest debian slink vers=
> ion
>
>>>
>>> why not replace rdate with the busybox
>>
> version?
>
>>> It worked quite well until I started to use
>>
> xntpd.
>
> I use it.also without problem
> this is my busybox list:
> basename, busybox, cat, chgrp, chmod, chown,
> clear, cp, cut, date,dd, df, dirname, dmesg, du,
> dutmp, echo, egrep, expr, false,fdflush,find,
> free, grep, gunzip, gzip, halt, head, hostname,
> id, init,insmod, kill, killall, klogd, linuxrc,
> ln, loadkmap, logger, ls,lsmod, makedevs, mkdir,
> mknod, more, mount, mv, nc, nslookup,poweroff,
> printf, ps, pwd, rdate, reboot, reset, rm, rmdir,
> rmmod,sleep, sort, swapoff, swapon, sync,
> syslogd, tail, tar, touch,tr, true, tty, umount,
> uname, uniq, update, uptime, wc, which,whoami,
> xargs, yes, zcat
> 158356 bytes, seems a lot but by removing
> insmod, and aa ffew others the root package is
> even smaller as before.
I wonder why some people replace some POSIXness links with their busybox
counterparts. On average the POSIXness version is smaller, so why
replace it when it works? I bet that they don't care to remove the
relevant code from POSIXness so the only result you'll get is a bigger
root.lrp (and yes a little more speed probably).
Ewald Wasscher
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
